Gun control is a fool’s argument

I may well have offered to many concessions on my original gun control compromise because the intransigence of the liberal left has made me realize that, like Islamic Radicals, any concession you make is viewed as a weakness and a reason to move the goalpost instead of reaching an accord. In my original post I offered a ban on weapons that could be converted from semi-automatic to automatic and potentially a civilian ban on handguns. For liberals this is not enough so I renege and take the position of Planned Parenthood and NARAL on abortion: Any restriction imposed on abortion (guns) is an opportunity for the opposition to increase those restrictions (The infamous “slippery slope.”). Unless we can ban mental illness or crazy people there is no way any form of gun control can prevent people like Adam Lanza or the Colorado gunman or anyone else for that matter from using guns to kill others. The man in China killed 24 with a knife. Schoolchildren were killed in Chechnya with a Bomb. One million children are killed every year by abortion and no guns were required for those killings. Gun control is a fool’s argument.

Automatic vs Semi-Automatic Gun Control

Is there such a thing as sensible gun control? Is there an accommodation between some guns or no guns, some guns or all guns, some weapons or no weapons? This is the battle that always emerges with each side trying to turn the argument into all or nothing and no space in between. If the extreme liberal left had its way everything except single shot 22’s, bb guns and double-barrel shotguns would be prohibited. If the extreme right had its way only tanks, bazookas and flame throwers would be prohibited. So for the rest of us there is plenty of middle ground if we could just operate there. The last assault weapons ban had one major flaw; it did not exclude “assault” weapons. The liberal left had widened the definition of assault weapons into include semi-automatic weapons and as a result permitted the semi-automatic  rifles like the AR-15, the AK-47 and other military style weapons to be included in the vast arsenal of hunting rifles like Winchester and Mossberg semi-automatic weapons. In fact Diane Feinstein’s proposed weapons bill has 900 semi-automatic exemptions and grandfathers all current guns currently in private hands. Perhaps a simple change in definition could help the Congress come up with a sensible bill that could pass both Houses, preserve the Second Amendment and eliminate assault weapons in the public market. Instead of semi-automatic weapons, why not ban automatic weapons and those can be transformed into automatic weapons. (The AR-15 and the AK-47 are perfect examples that can operate in semi-auto and automatic mode.) For those who do not know the difference: Semi-automatic are rifles that automatically load and eject cartridges and require a finger pull to fire each round. Automatic weapons fire continuously as long as the trigger is in the firing position. This latter category is the weapon typically called an assault weapon. In contrast most modern hunter and sports models are semi-automatic, is it’s easy to see how the desire to ban all guns has confused the issue and made the prohibition of assault weapons unattainable. I think most people would agree that automatic weapons as well as bazookas, tanks and flame throwers are not sportsman or hunter weapons and could easily fit in an assault weapons ban. It would include the most dangerous automatic weapons that can operate in semi-automatic mode and make their possession illegal for most civilians. At the same time it would protect owners of the semi-automatic weapons in use by most hunters, sportsman and target shooters. Even this ban would not have prevented the carnage in Connecticut, but a ban of automatic weapons is overdue. However, if you team up a federal requirement for possession of a handgun with an assault weapons ban you have a real chance of limting the carnage that occurred last week. A national handgun requirement would mean that most people would only qualify to have rifles, which are much more difficult to hide than handguns and reduce the chances they can be used as they were in many of the public shootings that have occurred. I find myself very ambivalent on this topic, but I agree that we must start someplace.

Boehner Should Return to Regular Order

It strikes me starnge that John Boehner is bargaining with the President. There is a legislative procedure. The House sends legislation to the Senate and when both agree the President signs it and it become law. So why is the Speaker bargaining with the President? The House should be bargaining with the Senate in a House/Senate Conference Committee. Doing so will put the Reid Democratic Senate on the spot, which is where the spot belongs. The Senate has not passed a budget for four years and refuses to bring up House bills for debate. Obama is just covering for Reid and Boehner should restore the proper procedure so an agreement can be reached. Boehner should break off discussions with the President, call for regular order, and let the Senate take its rightful place in this mess. His response to the President should be "there is a procedure and I intend to follow it."

The Party of No Return

I feel as though I have awakened into a new world; A Bizarro world where everything is backwards and the past only a few weeks old. In the few weeks since the election the Republican party has become the party of raising taxes, which of course requires a complete eradication of history back to George Bush's famous "read my lips" speech. Somehow people have been convinced that over a ten year period $850 billion in new taxes on the top 2% is going to have a significant effect on $30 trillion dollars in spending. (For those of you who like math that's .028%.) You notice they tell us how much we are going to save, but not how much we are going to spend. The number between $850B and $30T is pretty big, so if you think you are going to get a tax break that is your brain on drugs. The point here is that through sheer trickery or Republican ineptness Speaker Boehner and company are now in the position of defending tax increases to pander to the class warfare crowd. Somehow it is beyond their ability to point out that while they fought to lower everyone's taxes in 2002 it was the Democrats who insisted on the Sunset rule that would end the tax cuts in 2008. That was the deal Bush 43 had to cut the get everyone's rates lowered. People's taxes must go up, not to punish the top 2%, but to pay for a government that is spending a $1 trillion more every year than it was before 2008, not including the stimulus of that year. Yes, your government is spending a trillion dollars more every year, and that is why the taxpayers need protection from this ever-expanding bureaucratic nightmare. That is why we must cut spending starting with the so-called Fiscal Cliff negotiations. The Democrats must not be permitted to increase taxes now and cut spending later because if they are there will never be cuts in spending. Republicans should be fighting to make all the Bush cuts permanent and put the stopper on uncontrolled government spending. There can be no backing off by Republicans who must stay in the fight to reduce taxes or forever become the Party of No Return.

Closing the Deal

Things Mitt Romney should not forget in the last 10 days:

• The President has ordered more than 20 of Irans oil largest customers to be exempt from trading sanctions including 10 European nations, China and Japan.
• He still has not explained in full detail the events surrounding the murder of our Libyan Ambassador and his security detail.
• He has not stated any revisions on his energy policy regarding the Keystome pipeline.

 These are things Americans should know before they go to the voting booth.

Romney Hits and Misses

While Mr. Romney held his own in this last debate I thought he missed a few items on which I would have not let the President slide.

• Why did the President tell the world at the United Nations that the video was responsible for Libya when it was apparent to almost everyone that it wasn’t?
• Why did Obama approve letting 11 of Iran’s major trading partners not apply sanctions for economic reasons, which he claimed is the entire reason for sanctions?
• Mr. Romney also failed to point out that as President, Mr. Obama has never gone to Israel despite his claims of friendship and support, and his criticism of Romney’s trip.

Romney did not win last night in my view, but he held his own. However, the President proved he can be an unpleasant, nasty adversary and small man even in circumstances where it is not required. Romney was defintely Presidential enough.

There is no point in telling Mitt Romney what to say or how to say it. I just hope he will remember some the following foreign policy issues:

• The expansion of Al Qaeda and its influence in the Arab Spring.
• Fast & Furious as gun control policy. 
• Events in Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt. 
• Our alliance with Israel
• Iran's nuclear ambition-Is it true, Mr. President, that you recongnize Iran's right to nuclear technology? 
• The importance of fossil fuel in America's national security.
• Support for oil exploration in South America and the prevention of exploration here. 
• Our influence in the UN and the world at large. 
• The importance of trade deals in our favor. 
• Reinvigorated support for our traditional allies.
• Ask Obama what he meant when he told the Russians he'd be more flexible after he was re-elected?

Mitt should be on his guard against Bob Schieffer, who is decidely liberal and can be a slick customer with Texas drawl and softpoken manner.

Two Cents for Romney

Since everybody has advice for Mitt Romney I thought I would offer a little. The kind he is likely to get from someone more likely to be in the audience rather than behind the curtain. Your cause is a righteous one. America is not cruising along. It is in trouble of all kinds. It has national and international problems of all types and, disappointingly so, there is no leadership. In the absence of leadership, the vacuum will be filled.


• When questioned about the 47% Romney should explain that it is the 47% of the electorate that experts predict will vote for Obama. It does not include all those who receive government assistance, but it does include those who game the system and are really not paying their fair share. You cannot say people aren’t gaming the system. I do not know how much of the 47% are, but I bet there are some. When Obama asks for a number say "Your President, what do you think?"

• When questioned about the declining unemployment rate Romney should point out that it is still very high and that Obama promised it would be no higher than 5% if Congress passed the stimulus. He should add that experts say unemployment will not reach pre-recession levels until 2020 if we do not act.

• When questioned about Social Security and ObamaCare, Romney should point out the country wants to re-discuss ObamaCare now that we are finally learning what is in it, and that many of our Social Security and Medicare issues can be dealt with increased growth, which creates more revenue for both programs.

• When Obama brings up GM it should be pointed out despite the bailout, all the original stock and bondholders were wiped out and that after a little more than a year, its new stock has lost more than a third of its value, not to mention the mediocre success of the Volt, whose production is on and off like a water faucet. Romney should also remind voters of the federal stake in GM stock and how much of the loan has not been repaid.

• If Obama says Osama Bin Laden is dead, Romney should say that Al Qaeda is alive and well and demonstrating it for us all the time, most recently in Benghazi. Romney should also hold Obama accountable for the confusion and coverup between the White House, State Dept. and intelligence services.

• When questioned about energy Romney should point out the $90 billion has already been poorly spent on green energy and it is still in the research phase and not an adequate solution at this point. In contrast fossil fuel, produces the cheapest, most efficient energy and is one of the biggest commercial sources of tax income to government at all levels. The Keystone pipeline, fracking, drilling and refining are vital to our energy security and means millions of new jobs in the energy sector. Romney should point out that Obama's failure to approve Keystone and his failure to reign in the power of the EPA on oil leases and fracking on government property is hurting the nation. Energy security and self-reliance are attainable and laudable goals for our nation.

Good Luck, Mitt.

Bulletin: There will be no tax cuts

American taxpayers should prepare themselves for the worst. On January 1, 2013  there will be tax increases for everyone. The so called "Bush Tax Cuts" will expire and everyone's taxes will go up. This will occur no matter who wins the election. If Obama wins he will want it this way so he can continue to spend. If Romney wins the Democrats will want to deliver as much pain to the American people as they can as punishment for voting against them. There will be no grand bargain after election day. There will be no tax cut preserved for the middle class. There will be no budget. There will no spending cuts. Obama and Reid will make America pay through the nose. There will be a Continuing Resolution so that the Federal government can continue its reckless spending and maintain its trillion dollar deficits until the nation is bankrupt. The expiration of the tax cuts will ameliorate the automatic baseline increases for a little while, but the national debt will continue to grow, inching closer and closer to the $20 Trillion mark. In 2013, the American people will regret that the Bush Tax cuts were never made permanent.

Presidential Debates Need Moderator Balance

When the dates and moderators for the Presidential Debates were announced last week it was hardly surprising that every moderator was left-leaning. That is just how it is. We have come to expect it. There isn't even a pretense that fairness might be an issue. This year's Presidential Debate moderators include Jim Lehrer of  PBS, Candy Crowley of CNN and the Bob Schieffer of CBS, all three nakedly liberal and not a peep from anyone. After years of watching these three in action is there anyone out there who thinks that the questions will be from some other perspective than liberal? Is there anyone who thinks these three will not be phrasing their questions to give Obama an advantage? Is there anyone out there who thinks the Debate Commission should have done a better job? Well, I think so. I think they should be embarrassed at having chosen three such obvious water bearers for Obama to moderate a debate with his opponent. I bet if they had chosen Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity as moderators a lot of liberals would be pulling their hair out and screaming bloody murder. Of course, not even I would expect the Commission to do that, but it's not too much to ask for fairness. It's not that hard.

Why Lose When You Can Win

Can't Republicans be smart just once? Instead of going on TV and radio and declaring they will kill the Democratic Tax Bill passed by the Senate, offer up the Republican version of the tax bill and call for a conference committee? It seems like such an obvious solution. It doesn't prevent the Democrats and their MSM allies from portraying the Republicans as only interested in helping the rich, but it does take air out the argument because Republicans are willing to debate a bill and seek a compromise to the tax question. If it is true that the entire tax debate is a charade and nothing will be done anyway until after the election, why are the Republicans willing to lose this battle without a fight by killing the bill and giving Democrats an unnecessary and undeserved victory? Think it over Mr. Speaker, Mr. Cantor,  Mr. McCarthy; do you guys ever want to win?

Why Infrastructure Spending Doesn’t Create Jobs

It is the fashion of Democrats to rant and rave about the importance of highways, bridges and other infrastructure spending as way to boost the economy through government spending in times of economic troubles. The problem is that due to the way infrastructure construction takes place it often takes years for it to produce jobs and provide economies with a boost. In fact, money earmarked or budgeted for these funds now will not be spent for several years, because the actual building of infrastructure takes much longer than appropriating money for it. It often takes years of planning just to begin implementing the construction process. New York’s various bridges, tunnels and subways demonstrate this aptly. Many have been in the works for two decades or more and are still not finished, not because of money, but because of bureaucracy and the time required to complete infrastructure building. In addition, such projects do not create new jobs, as most of these are existing union jobs and often go to the same construction firms’ generation after generation. None of this is to say that infrastructure spending is not a good thing; it is. It is only to say the jobs are not provided quickly and any such statements made by politicians who would like to use infrastructure as a way to boost the economy quickly are blowing smoke and you know whose face it is being blown in.

Obama's EO on Immigration

In view of the hysteria being generated over Obama's Executive Order on Immigration there is a need to closely analyze the "new" policy. When analyzed it can be determined that the new policy is nothing but a holding order that has no power in law and can be overturned on a whim by a succeeding President or made moot by real legislation from the Congress.  Both the President and Homeland Security Secretary have noted the new policy is neither Amnesty or a pathway to citizenship. They referred to it as a two-year "deferment" policy that qualified illegals aliens can sign up for. The qualifications are rather narrow. In return they will not be pursued for deportation and may qualify for work permits. Hello; we have not been pursuing these non-law-breaking immigrants and they get jobs anyway. Our cities and states are filled with them. Some colleges and universities offer them in-state tuition discounts. We have "sanctuary" cities around the country that make homes for them. We already have legislation that provides a pathway to citizenship for illegals who serve in the military. So in that sense the order offers nothing new, but has been made to sound as if it is groundbreaking. It amounts to nothing more than a public relations gimmick to fool Hispanics into voting for President Obama in return for his "gift" to them. However, from an illegal alien's perspective this may not be such a great deal. When one applies for the program the government now has their vitals including where they live. So for example, if a President gets in office who wants to repeal the order and round up illegals it can be more easily done. Given how many other supporters Obama has thrown under the bus in the past, why would any illegal alien feel safe signing up for the Obama program now?

Why the Donkey is a Jackass

Whether it’s the General Services Administration, the Secret Service, the pursuits of individual Departments or the actions of a Democratic Congress, the common thread is President Obama’s inability to provide leadership and accountability. The behavior of those in the Obama Presidency is easily summed up by the words “out of control.” You have dozens and dozens of bureaucrats pursuing their own objectives as if they were put in place to pursue whatever goals they choose. They do so without considering the potential impact on the President, his office, his election, his status among the American people. It’s like an MTV government where anything goes as long as you can get away with it. It’s like Jackass, only they are using your money and destroying your economy. Consider the following: EPA Secretary Lisa Jackson and Interior Secretary Ken Salazar are pursuing policies likely to cost Obama the election, yet they continue as if his election doesn’t even matter. Energy Secretary Steven Chu continues to throw good money after bad green energy ideas as if Solyndra and the other bankruptcies didn’t occur. Eric Holder decides to ignore the activity of the New Black Panthers, but sues states trying to enforce immigration and election laws. Not a single Democrat in the Hose of Representatives provides a vote for Obama’s budget, which lost 414-0. The Democratic Senate has not offered a Budget in three years. These are just a few of many things that have occurred without a whimper from the President. With the kind of friends Obama has, he doesn't need any enemies.

Lipstick on a Pig

Debbie Wasserman-Shultz proved she’s nothing more than a dumb blonde when she dodged Greta Van Susteren’s questions about the Democrat portion of the 2013 budget. DWS’s appearance on Greta’s show was intended to be a diatribe on the dangers to America of Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis) Budget Plan, but Greta kept asking why the Democrats had not put forth a budget that could result in a conference between the House and Senate, which is the way budgets are normally produced. For the record: Obama’s 2013 budget was defeated in the House 414-0. Not a single Democrat voted for it. DWS did not address the House defeat of Obama's budget as it never came up as a question from the normally astute Greta. Senate Majority leader Harry Reid has already gone on record saying he does think the Democrats have to offer a budget until after the election. Instead DWS kept going back to the Democrat talking points on how dangerous the Ryan budget was to the future of America. The point that Greta was trying to make was that in order to have a budget negotiation you must have things to negotiate. If the Democrats won’t support Obama’s budget or put forth one of their own, how can any negotiating start? DWS never answered the question. So you see behind all the accusations of Republican obstructionism, it is the Democrats who are doing the obstructing and they are trying to do it by putting “lipstick on a pig.”

Obama's Catch-22 Moment

Obama faces some real "catch-22" moments: In order for him to be re-elected he must reject the very policies that made it possible for him to win the Presidency in the first place. A variation of you have to be in the union to get a job, but you can't join the union until you have one. Obama campaigned mightily against fossil fuel, and now after warring against it for three years his only pathway to cheaper energy is by supporting fossil fuel exploration and production. If energy prices continue to rise Obama cannot win. The President also campaigned heavily on the deficit, saying he would cut it in half in his first term. In fact, he has quadrupled the annual deficit in his first four years in office and has increased the national debt by almost $6 trillion. He has, some say, used a lot of this money as an "election" slush fund that has found its way into Obama's re-election campaign through vehicles such as green energy grant funding to companies managed by Obama election fund raisers. These are just two examples of the many reasons Obama will lose in November and that is perhaps his biggest Catch-22; As President a man can do many things, but to be President you have to win the election.

Is the Voting System Broken?

Because of the spat of ACORN stories we are getting about tampering with the vote I am reprinting a letter published in Long Island Newsday, Dec 7, 2000.

Is the Voting System Broken?

Knowing what we now know about chads, dimples, undervotes, overvotes, absentee ballots and voting machines, will we ever be able to trust the result of any future election?

Any watchful person following this story now knows that millions of votes go uncounted in every election. Millions more votes are disqualified. It happens in every voting precinct and in every election throughout the United States in every race.

If Vice President Al Gore and his supporters are right, then why should any American believe the results of any election? Will all future American elections be decided by lawyers when the races are close?

What has made American elections work since the founding of the country is the belief that the people who manage them are for the most part honest, hard-working and fair. Yes, there is the occasional scandal, but overall the results have been trustworthy-or have they?

And isn't that really the question we must now ask ourselves? Because if our elections are a fraud, then the voting franchise is also a fraud. Without the freedom to vote and have it counted honestly with the same rules for everybody, there is no franchise and without it there can be no America-at least not in the way the founders envisioned it

Handling the Immigration Issue

The Republicans need a more sophisticated way to handle the immigration issue. It seems like the even the dumbest news anchor, pundit or questioner can trip them up into some ridiculous argument or statement that can be used to grind them up into little pieces and render them unelectable. The New Narrative would like to contribute to this effort. It would begin by pointing out that there isn't an immigration strategy than can work unless the current system is reformed. It takes more than 10 years to complete the citizenship process and the backlog is so long that if the current illegal population returned home they would not be processed for at least a decade; probably one of the main reasons many won't return home and prefer to live in the shadows. So we should begin by reforming the Immigration and Naturalization Service into a tight, streamlined organization that can reduce the processing time and clear up the current backlog. Secondly we should control all of the entry points so illegal aliens cannot enter the country without documentation. And third: We should reform the visa and political asylum process so that it can keep track of those here on visas and not be used for trivial immigration cases. Republicans must not let themselves be drawn into arguments about specific nationalities, but focus instead on the INS as a service that is failing the nation. The racial and ethnic hustlers are constantly looking for ways to use the immigration debate to defeat any remedy except open borders. The Republicans must handle the argument better if they want to win.

The Democratic Lumping Technique

After what seemed like a long absence Katrina Vanden Huevel of The Nation Magazine has begun to appear on television and last week she was in the roundtable discussion on This Week with George Stephanopoulos. She offered her typical diatribe of Republican and conservative sins saying they were anti-minority, anti-poor, anti-immigrant, etc. Like most liberals she likes to mix terms to confuse the issue and make her opposition appear to be not just against something, but against everything. For example when discussing immigration Katrina likes to say conservatives and Republicans hate all immigrants, no matter how many times Republicans say they support legal immigration and are against "illegal immigration" Lumping legal and illegal immigration together makes for easy tirades and putting the opposition in a not-so-pretty box. This week on ABC Katrina aired the latest effort to confuse voters by saying people who are in favor of reducing entitlements must mean they are for cuts in Social Security and Medicare, when she knows that entitlement reform will be focused on those entitlements that are taxpayer-funded in contrast to Social Security and Medicare, which are tax-payer supported. To be sure there is abuse and fraud in both programs than can discovered and corrected and we can find ways to make them self-supporting through growth and reform. However, once again by lumping "entitlements" as all part of the same thing liberals and Democrats hope all the tax-payer funded, non-self-supporting entitlements will escape scrutiny. There is little doubt that "entitlement reform" is likely to become part of the discussion as we approach the 2012 election. It is important to recognize this little Democratic device and call it when we see it.

Newt's Surprise Win in South Carolina

Newt's win in South Carolina was a real surprise for many of the so-called expert pundits who for the second time in less than a year wrote him off and then referred to him as Lazarus. Last September when his campaign staff walked they said it was over. Then as the debates proceeded he seemed to be gaining ground until he had re-established himself before the Iowa contest. His poor showing in Iowa gave the experts reason to once again say this was his last opportunity and a poor showing in New Hampshire would really be the end. He accommodated them in New Hampshire with a poorer than poor showing there and was basically written off. Then the John King debacle on CNN, which was preceded by the old news ABC redo of an old Esquire interview of Marianne Gingrich, the Speaker's jilted wife. In the interview she charged he asked for an open marriage and that we was an egomaniac who should never be President and she was going to do everything she could to prevent it. King asked Newt if he would like to comment. The Speaker gave John King what for and it proved to be one of the turning points that lead to an overwhelming win that may yet propel him to the nomination. It’s too early to tell, but you never know. Maybe it just me, but I love it when a guy comes along and proves his detractors to be all wet. Newt may not be everybody's cup of tea, but one thing is for sure; many of the insiders say he shouldn't be the nominee and that's just enough to make me think he might be the right guy.

Will America Change Course on Energy

President's Obama’s decision to not go forward on the Keystone XL Pipeline has sparked a new conversation on fossil fuel production in the United States. While President Obama and his environmental allies may not have intended to start this debate, it may be one they might well regret. The United States is now finding itself in the position of being able to produce more than enough fossil fuel energy to be self-sufficient in a world that is getting more and more dangerous, as well as hostile to American interests. Americans are getting tired of being held captive to high priced energy to satisfy the so-far unrealized desire for non-polluting fuel. Wind and Solar are absolute failures both in Europe and in America. Ethanol has lead to rising food prices throughout the world. And, of course the dirty little secret is that all alternative fuels require fossil fuel to make the devices that provide the energy or fossil fuel backup in case they stop working. The emergence of clean coal, oil fracking and an abundance of natural gas can reopen the gates to prosperity for our nation and other countries if they follow our lead. Cheap energy has been one of the keys to America's prosperity for more than a century and has been responsible for moving the entire human race forward. We should not let this opportunity pass us by to satisfy the not always well-meaning intentions of anti-energy special interest groups.

MLK Day: A Field Day for Racists

Martin Luther King's birthday was been a field day for liberal racists like AG Eric Holder and NAACP President Ben Jealous. They both spent the MLK hoiliday fighting voter id laws instead of fighting voter fraud. After choosing not to follow through on the prosecution of two black man intimidating voters in front of a polling place claiming they were "his people," Holder spoke at a rally protesting new voter ID laws. NAACP President Ben Jealous claimed that the only reason states wanted voter ID laws was to create a new version of the Jim Crow "Poll Tax." He falsely claimed there have only been 352 cases of voter fraud over the last 30 years and completely ignored the 13 states that conducted voter faruad investigationsagainst ACORN in 2008, as well as the people charged with fraud and found guilty because of those investigations. Racism does live, but we need a new appraisal of who practices it and where it lives.

Closing Commerce is Getting it Backwards

American Obama's plan to eliminate the Commerce Dept is just another deceptive political ploy to make it look like he is cutting spending. Analysis shows he does want to close Commerce to save $3 billion over 10 years. In its place he wants to open a new export agency and does not mention its cost. He wants to put the U.S. Export-Import Bank, Overseas Private Investment Corp, the Trade and Development Agency, the Small Business Administration and parts of the Commerce Department under a new roof. Maybe it would be even cheaper to move those other agencies into Commerce instead. Starting a new bureaucracy is more expensive than altering an old one. So while saving $3 billion over ten years (that's $30 million a year) he will be spending over $100 Million this year to create a new agency. That is no way to cut spending.

Why China Cannot Overtake America

American nay-sayers, like Fareed Zakaria of CNN, love to say China will overtake America economically by 2020. Our current GDP is 14.7 Trillion. China's is $1.35 Trillion. For China to surpass America they must grow at 100 per year for the next five years and American must not only not grow, but decline as well. American nay-sayers are wrong. What's more China holds only about 6% of our national debt, so they do not "own" us in any way. We must dispel these crazy notions by the progressive left with the truth.